DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final Rejection filed September 17, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey et al. (US 20140253139; hereinafter Lindsey, already of record), in view of Sopko, Jr. et al. (US 8636442; hereinafter Sopko, of record in IDS), and further in view of Nelson (US 7641419).
Regarding Claim 8,
Lindsey teaches
A paving machine, (Lindsey: Paragraph [0002], FIG. 1; “Paving Machine”) comprising:
a screed assembly including a screed power module; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0003], [0016], FIG. 1; “The only portions of the paving machine shown in FIG. 1 are the screed 134 and a screed power module (SPM) 132 that may control the supply of electric power to a plurality of independent heating zones on screed 134.”)
heaters associated with the screed assembly; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0016]; “Each of the independent heating zones may include a plurality of heating elements 34.”)
a tester device; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0017]: “Leak Current Detection System 100”) and
a relay or contactor switchable from a first position to a second position, wherein...the relay or the contactor is electrically connected to the tester device in the second position; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0027]; “Controller 160 may be configured to automatically sequence between the first and second low voltage diagnostic tests when initiated by an operator after one of the diagnostic tests has detected a fault such as leakage current in excess of a threshold for one of the plural parallel zones containing subsets of electrical conducting elements. This automatic sequencing may include opening only the zone switch for the faulted zone, and then performing the first and second low voltage diagnostic tests successively in conjunction with the disconnection of electrical connectors interposed between the electrical conducting elements to isolate one or more electrical conducting elements within the faulted zone.”)
a controller, (Lindsey: Paragraph [0026]; “Leakage current detection system 100 may also include a controller 160”) wherein the controller is configured to:
determine to start a test of the heaters associated with the screed assembly of the paving machine; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0026]; “Leakage current detection system 100 may also include a controller 160 configured to automatically and sequentially alternate between connecting the first low voltage DC power source LV1 to perform a first low voltage diagnostic test, and connecting the second low voltage DC power source LV2 to perform a second low voltage diagnostic test.”)
send, to the tester device associated with the paving machine, one or more signals configured to cause a test voltage to be generated (Lindsey: Paragraph [0017]; Leakage Current Detection System 100) while the heaters are sequentially turned off and then on to perform a test including testing a first heater while the other heaters remain on ... (Lindsey: Paragraph [0032])
receive a measurement of an insulation resistance of each of the one or more heaters during the test; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0018]; “Faults may include areas of deteriorating electrical insulation or other material or structural faults that may lead to current leaking from an electrical conducting element to a frame ground of the machine in amounts exceeding a threshold. When resistance to the current leakage is very high, such as 1000 M ohms, there may be only a negligible amount of current leakage. Therefore, a threshold level of resistance to current leakage may be selected as a level of resistance below which the amount of current leakage is considered to be a fault, and a warning indicator may be provided on an operator panel 170.” The “resistance to current leak” value is the Insulation Resistance value.) and
perform one or more actions based on a result of processing the measurement. (Lindsey: Paragraph [0018]; When a fault is detected the system will display a warning to the operator of the paving machine.)
Lindsey does not teach
...
a relay or contactor switchable from a first position to a second position, wherein the relay or the contactor is electrically connected to the screed power module in the first position,
...
send, to the tester device associated with the paving machine, one or more signals configured to cause a test voltage to be generated...while the paving machine heats the paving material;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Sopko teaches
...
send, to the tester device associated with the paving machine, one or more signals configured to cause a test voltage to be generated...while the paving machine heats the paving material; (Sopko: Column 9, Line 26-35, Column 10, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 12)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the insulation resistance testing system of Lindsey with the testing process of Sopko for the benefit of improving the efficiency and reliability of heating a paving screed of the paving machine to an optimal temperature for laying the mat on the paving surface. (Sopko: Column 1, Line 8-11)
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, does not teach
...
a relay or contactor switchable from a first position to a second position, wherein the relay or the contactor is electrically connected to the screed power module in the first position,...
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Nelson teaches
...
a relay or contactor switchable from a first position to a second position, (Nelson: Column 3, Line 15-24) wherein the relay or the contactor is electrically connected to the screed power module in the first position,... (Nelson: Column 3, Line 25-32)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the relay switch of Lindsey, in view of Sopko, with the electric connection to the screed power module of Nelson for the benefit of automatically adjusting the temperature of the screed plate by selectively energizing one or more of the plurality of resistive heating elements. (Nelson: Column 1, Line 54-56)
Regarding Claim 10,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The paving machine according to claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured, when determining to start the test, to:
determine to start the test based on:
start-up of the paving machine, (Lindsey: Paragraph [0028]; “These low voltage diagnostic tests may also occur on start-up, prior to activation of high voltage power source HV by the operator.”)
input from an operator of the paving machine via a display of the paving machine, (Lindsey: Paragraph [0027]; “An operator panel 170 may provide input devices such as test initiation buttons, a touch screen, levers, or switches that enable an operator to initiate the automatic and sequential low voltage diagnostic tests by activation of the input device on operator panel 170.”)
one or more signals from a diagnostic system of the paving machine, (Lindsey: Paragraph [0027]; The operator may engage the diagnostic system to test the screed heaters.) or
one or more signals from a server device that is remote to the paving machine. (Lindsey: Paragraph [0028]; “Controller 160 may also be automated to perform various low voltage diagnostic tests by a timed sequence or commanded remotely by a data link signal from another machine controller or an electronic service/diagnostic tool.”)
Regarding Claim 11,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The paving machine according to claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured, when receiving the measurement, to:
receive the measurement from the tester device; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0042]: “A determination that the level of leakage current is unacceptable...may result in an indication that the connected heating element is faulted, and an update of the operator panel.” When a heating element is measured to be faulty, the tester sends the measurement to the system to notify the operator.) and
wherein the controller is further configured to:
provide the measurement to a server device remote from the paving machine for processing. (Lindsey: Paragraph [0028]; “Controller 160 may also be automated to perform various low voltage diagnostic tests by a timed sequence or commanded remotely by a data link signal from another machine controller or an electronic service/diagnostic tool.” The electronic service/diagnostic tool acts as the server device remote for remotely initiating the diagnostic tests.)
Regarding Claim 14,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The paving machine according to claim 8, wherein the one or more actions include generating an alarm or a message for display on a display of the paving machine. (Lindsey: Paragraph [0035]; “At step 344 a determination is made that one of the ground fault locations discussed above has a fault, and operator panel 170 is updated to display this information.”)
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is analogous to Claim 8 limitations with the following additional limitations:
sending, by the controller and to a tester device associated with the paving machine, one or more signals configured to cause a test voltage to be generated (Sopko: Column 10, Line 60-66) while the heaters are sequentially turned off and then on to conduct the test, including turning a first heater off while the second heater remains on, and then turning the first heater on by supplying a test voltage (Lindsey: Paragraph [0027]) while other heaters remain on during a paving operation (Sopko: Column 10, Line 60-66) and before testing the second heater; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0027])
Therefore Claim 1 is rejected under the same premise as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 2,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the test voltage is generated by the tester device after disconnecting the first heater from a screed power module. (Lindsey: Paragraph [0027])
Regarding Claim 3, the claim is analogous to Claim 10 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim is analogous to Claim 11 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 6,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further includes receiving by the first heater, the test voltage from the tester device while the second heater receives power from a generator and/or inverter. (Lindsey: Paragraph [0027])
Regarding Claim 7,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The paving machine according to claim 8, wherein the one or more actions include: generating an alarm or a message for display on a display of the paving machine; (Lindsey: Paragraph [0035]; “At step 344 a determination is made that one of the ground fault locations discussed above has a fault, and operator panel 170 is updated to display this information.”) stopping the paving machine or a heater; or modifying an operation of the paving machine, the first heater, or one or more other heaters.)
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is analogous to Claim 8 limitations with the following additional limitations:
send, to a tester device associated with the paving machine, one or more signals configured to cause a test voltage to be generated...while the paving machine deposits paving material; (Sopko: Column 10, Line 60-66, Column 11, Line 13-30; The system is constantly checking the screed for faults, including in real-time during the paving operation. If a fault is detected while the machine is laying the mat but is determined that said fault will not be fatal to the quality of the mat, the system sends a notification to the operator instead and allows the operator to make the final determination on whether or not to continue the paving operation.)
Therefore Claim 15 is rejected under the same premise as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is analogous to Claim 10 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is analogous to Claim 11 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 11.
Claims 9, 13, 16, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey, in view of Sopko and Nelson, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-18, above, and further in view of Erasmus (US 6421594, of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 9
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The paving machine according to claim 8,...
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, does not teach
...wherein the one or more signals are further configured, when causing the one or more heaters to be sequentially turned off and then on, to cause a first heater to be turned off and then on prior to testing a second heater.
However in the same field of endeavor, Erasmus teaches
...wherein the one or more signals are further configured, when causing the one or more heaters to be sequentially turned off and then on, to cause a first heater to be turned off and then on prior to testing a second heater. (Erasmus: Column 2, Line 20-27; Column 5, Line 30-40, FIG. 3)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the insulation resistance testing system of Lindsey, Sopko and Nelson with the sequential testing process of Erasmus for the benefit of preventing the screed heater from experiencing excessive loads during use. (Erasmus: Column 2, Line 1-9)
Regarding Claim 13,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, further in view of Nelson, and further in view of Erasmus, teaches
The paving machine according to claim 8, wherein the one or more actions include stopping the paving machine or a heater, (Erasmus: Column 4, Line 15-19; The system deactivates any heater that it detects to have insulation faults.) or
modifying an operation of the paving machine, the heater, or one or more other heaters. (Erasmus: Column 4, Line 15-19; Column 5, Line 29-43; When a fault is detected in a heater, said heater is deactivated and only the heaters without faults are allowed to operate. A fault is detected when a threshold temperature is reached. The system then shuts off the faulty heater(s) immediately before they can reach the critical operating temperature.)
The motivation to combine Lindsey, Sopko, and Erasmus, is the same as stated for Claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 9 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 13 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 13.
Claims 5, 12, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey, in view of Sopko and Nelson, as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20, above, and further in view of Schepp et al. (US 20150198652; hereinafter Schepp, already of record).
Regarding Claim 12,
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, teaches
The paving machine according to claim 8,...
Lindsey, in view of Sopko, and further in view of Nelson, does not teach
...wherein the controller is further configured to:
generate a degradation curve based on the measurement; and
determine whether a heater is faulty or likely to experience a fault based on the degradation curve.
However in the same field of endeavor, Schepp teaches
...wherein the controller is further configured to:
generate a degradation curve based on the measurement; (Schepp: Paragraph [0027], FIG. 2(a-f); The system generates a curve based on detected insulation resistance to compare with stored curves in order to detect fault conditions.) and
determine whether a heater is faulty or likely to experience a fault based on the degradation curve. (Schepp: Paragraph [0026]-[0027], FIG. 1 and 2 (a-f); The system generates a curve based on detected insulation resistance of the heater and compares it with stored curves. If the curve matches a stored curve for a fault condition, then the system determines that there is a fault in the heater and displays the determination.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the screed heater testing system of Lindsey, in view of Sopko, with the degradation curve and the fault determination of Schepp for the benefit of detecting an insulation fault. (Schepp: Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 5, the claim is analogous to Claim 12 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is analogous to Claim 12 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663